OpenAI and the White House have actually implicated DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to inexpensively train its brand-new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law state OpenAI has little option under copyright and contract law.
- OpenAI's terms of use may apply but are largely unenforceable, they state.
This week, OpenAI and the White House accused DeepSeek of something akin to theft.

In a flurry of press statements, they stated the Chinese upstart had actually bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with queries and hoovered up the resulting data trove to quickly and cheaply train a design that's now almost as great.

The Trump administration's top AI czar stated this training procedure, called "distilling," totaled up to copyright theft. OpenAI, on the other hand, informed Business Insider and other outlets that it's investigating whether "DeepSeek may have wrongly distilled our designs."

OpenAI is not stating whether the company plans to pursue legal action, instead guaranteeing what a spokesperson termed "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to safeguard our technology."

But could it? Could it sue DeepSeek on "you stole our material" premises, similar to the grounds OpenAI was itself took legal action against on in a continuous copyright claim submitted in 2023 by The New York City Times and other news outlets?

BI posed this concern to professionals in technology law, who stated difficult DeepSeek in the courts would be an uphill fight for OpenAI now that the is on the other foot.

OpenAI would have a hard time proving a copyright or copyright claim, these legal representatives stated.

"The question is whether ChatGPT outputs" - meaning the answers it creates in response to inquiries - "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School said.

That's since it's unclear whether the answers ChatGPT spits out certify as "creativity," he stated.

"There's a doctrine that says imaginative expression is copyrightable, however facts and concepts are not," Kortz, who teaches at Harvard's Cyberlaw Clinic, said.

"There's a big question in copyright law right now about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever make up innovative expression or if they are always unguarded realities," he added.

Could OpenAI roll those dice anyway and declare that its outputs are secured?

That's not likely, the lawyers said.

OpenAI is already on the record in The New york city Times' copyright case arguing that training AI is a permitted "fair use" exception to copyright protection.

If they do a 180 and tell DeepSeek that training is not a fair usage, "that may come back to type of bite them," Kortz stated. "DeepSeek could say, 'Hey, weren't you simply stating that training is reasonable use?'"

There may be a distinction in between the Times and DeepSeek cases, Kortz included.

"Maybe it's more transformative to turn news articles into a design" - as the Times accuses OpenAI of doing - "than it is to turn outputs of a design into another design," as DeepSeek is stated to have actually done, Kortz said.

"But this still puts OpenAI in a pretty predicament with regard to the line it's been toeing regarding fair usage," he included.

A breach-of-contract suit is most likely

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is much likelier than an IP-based lawsuit, though it features its own set of problems, stated Anupam Chander, who teaches technology law at Georgetown University.

Related stories

The terms of service for Big Tech chatbots like those developed by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid using their content as training fodder for a contending AI design.

"So possibly that's the suit you may perhaps bring - a contract-based claim, not an IP-based claim," Chander stated.

"Not, 'You copied something from me,' however that you benefited from my model to do something that you were not permitted to do under our agreement."

There may be a drawback, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's regards to service need that a lot of claims be resolved through arbitration, not suits. There's an exception for claims "to stop unauthorized use or abuse of the Services or intellectual home violation or misappropriation."

There's a bigger hitch, though, professionals stated.

"You need to know that the fantastic scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of usage are likely unenforceable," Chander stated. He was referring to a January 10 paper, "The Mirage of Expert System Regards To Use Restrictions," by Stanford Law's Mark A. Lemley and Peter Henderson of Princeton University's Center for Information Technology Policy.

To date, "no model creator has in fact attempted to impose these terms with financial charges or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is most likely for excellent reason: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it includes. That remains in part because design outputs "are mainly not copyrightable" and because laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "deal limited recourse," it says.

"I think they are likely unenforceable," Lemley told BI of OpenAI's regards to service, "because DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and since courts normally won't impose agreements not to contend in the lack of an IP right that would avoid that competition."

Lawsuits in between parties in various countries, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are always challenging, Kortz said.

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above obstacles and asteroidsathome.net won a judgment from an US court or arbitrator, "in order to get DeepSeek to turn over money or stop doing what it's doing, the enforcement would boil down to the Chinese legal system," he stated.

Here, OpenAI would be at the grace of another very complex location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of private and corporate rights and national sovereignty - that extends back to before the founding of the US.

"So this is, a long, complicated, laden procedure," Kortz included.

Could OpenAI have secured itself much better from a distilling attack?

"They might have used technical procedures to obstruct repeated access to their site," Lemley said. "But doing so would also hinder regular consumers."

He added: "I don't believe they could, or should, have a valid legal claim versus the searching of uncopyrightable info from a public website."

Representatives for DeepSeek did not immediately respond to an ask for comment.

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize approaches, including what's known as distillation, to attempt to duplicate innovative U.S. AI models," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI representative, informed BI in an emailed declaration.